Jump to content

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

John, just let it sit for awhile... doesn't cost anything. Nobody knows what is really going on with this.  There are even 'conspiracy' theories about SS being sold (like Fotolia / Adobe thing). Not that I think this is credible, but whole thing is just too hot right now. Let it cool off

 

 

 

I'll probably chill for awhile. There's no rush with my tiny nest egg. As mentioned, I was mainly looking for a home for my video clips. The last video sale I made "over there" netted $18, but the next one could bring as little as $0.60 according to rumours. If so, it won't really be worth the effort...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

really? Do you care to explain why?  You think people that live in poor countries and have problems making ends meet should be laughed at?

 

 

More to the point do you and the other SS contributors posting  here live in poor countries? Do you do it because you are hungry?

 

And are those poor people in Asia and Africa submitting pictures of global travel and north American and European cities and people?

 

The argument is what I said was laughable. And the way people in rich countries use it to justify contributing to SS while at the same time agreeing  themselves that  in doing so it is helping to destroy the stock photography industry.

 

If these poor people in desperate need of a few cents are forced to contribute to SS to feed themselves why are you competing with them to take the food from their hungry bellies?  

 

As I said it is a laughable justification for what you and tens of thousands of others choose to do out of free will not poverty. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

More to the point do you and the other SS contributors posting  here live in poor countries? Do you do it because you are hungry?

 

And are those poor people in Asia and Africa submitting pictures of global travel and north American and European cities and people?

 

The argument is what I said was laughable. And the way people in rich countries use it to justify contributing to SS while at the same time agreeing  themselves that  in doing so is helping to destroy the stock photography industry.

 

If these poor people in desperate need of a few cents are forced to contribute to SS to feed themselves why are you competing with them to take the food from their hungry bellies?  

 

As I said it is a laughable justification for what you and tens of thousands of others choose to do out of free will not poverty. 

Thank you for demonstrating high IQ level.  You only enjoy quarreling with people nothing else.   I have nothing more to say to you. Please do not bother commenting on my posts, I will not answer.    Kind regards

Edited by Autumn Sky
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

Thank you for demonstrating high IQ level.  You only enjoy quarreling with people nothing else.   I have nothing more to say to you. Please do not bother commenting on my posts, I will not answer.    Kind regards

 

 

So much for discussion.....you did ask me to explain.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

really? Do you care to explain why?  You think people that live in poor countries and have problems making ends meet should be laughed at?

 

I tend to think that people that live in poor countries and have problems making ends meet probably have other concerns than buying computers/photography gear in order to submit photos of apples to Shutterstock. Just my opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be that a few cents go further in poorer countries but as Olivier says if these contributors were so poor they would not have been able to afford the trappings needed to supply images in the first place. 

You would need a pretty large portfolio just to pay your monthly internet connection charge at 10c a sale.

 

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I'll probably chill for awhile. There's no rush with my tiny nest egg. As mentioned, I was mainly looking for a home for my video clips. The last video sale I made "over there" netted $18, but the next one could bring as little as $0.60 according to rumours. If so, it won't really be worth the effort...

 

John my understanding is they will pay you out if you cancel your account but not if you just suspend it.

I really don't think they are that bad a company that they would try to hang on to your money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only had a small port at SS, opened it in a spat when Alamy reduced their commision rates. Closed that account last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest. Nobody with a portfolio under 20K images can make a decent living by selling photos through an web stock photo agency, these days.
I keep on submitting my pictures to Alamy beause I'm glad that customers deem some of them them enough good to publish them on a magazine, a book or a website and pay a (rather) fair amount for it. It's pocket money, not really a solid income, for me.
Therefore, I'm not, and I'll never be, available to sell my pictures for 10p. Neither on Alamy nor on microstock. Yet, Alamy pays (paid?) a bit better per picture than, say, SS, and I'm happy with that. Comparing $140 a months with $50 a months makes no sense to me. Even if it's 180% more, it's still pocket money.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the contributors have been worrying about $0.10, Shutterstock's chairman needed some pocket money ...

Date Director name Director's position Deal type Number of Price Value of trade Director's shares
shares dealt remaining
03-Jun-20 Oringer, Jonathan   Regular sell transaction (market) 13,356.00 $37.39 $499,380.84 16,209,754.00
02-Jun-20 Oringer, Jonathan   Regular sell transaction (market) 17,255.00 $37.13 $640,678.15 16,223,110.00
01-Jun-20 Silvio, Peter CTO Sell (tax related) 776 $37.13 $28,812.88 28,975.00
01-Jun-20 Oringer, Jonathan   Regular sell transaction (market) 15,962.00 $37.22 $594,105.64 16,240,365.00

 

(sorry about the formatting)

 

That totals $1,734,164.63 so far this June. That leaves him with just $599,760,898 worth of stock (at $37) left in hand.

 

That's a lot of $0.10 sales!

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BobD said:

It may be that a few cents go further in poorer countries but as Olivier says if these contributors were so poor they would not have been able to afford the trappings needed to supply images in the first place. 

You would need a pretty large portfolio just to pay your monthly internet connection charge at 10c a sale.

 

List of USD incomes https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/ukraine/annual-household-income-per-capita

 

Plenty of countries on that list in Europe and supplying large numbers of images to microstock including/especially, lifestyle.  You don't have to be a 'poor' country in order to produce vast numbers of quality images.

 

Once you can produce them cheaply, you can 'afford' to sell at rates/returns which UK/USA/Western European countries would find impossible to justify as a business. 

 

Personally I took great pleasure in deleting my small SS account, one image at a time - they lost their gloss a few years ago. Like normal stock channels, the good days are now history for most.

Edited by GeoffK
typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publicly available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

Edited by Russell
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Russell said:

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publically available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

Perhaps Jonathan Oringer is a member of the forum.😀

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Russell said:

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publicly available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

 

There are still a few microstock cultists fighting for the cause through anonymous red arrows for any hint of negative thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Russell said:

That's odd, what on earth is the logic behind giving a red arrow for publishing some publicly available information on share (stock) sales. 😲

 

maybe because it's skewing away the conversion away from the leeway Alamy kindly allowed in discussion general industry discussion. this seems personal (though not as bad as what i saw on their own Forum).  just speculating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

maybe because it's skewing away the conversion away from the leeway Alamy kindly allowed in discussion general industry discussion. this seems personal (though not as bad as what i saw on their own Forum).  just speculating. 

Simply illustrating the gulf between the mindset of the senior executives and that of their contributors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Russell said:

Simply illustrating the gulf between the mindset of the senior executives and that of their contributors.

 

but it's more the distance between the rate of return requirements of the shareholders for a publicly traded company.  In the end they are the one demanding these.  I use to be in pricing in insurance, and i didn't set price and have "negative" clauses because of the president's salary, i did because the market would beat us if we didn't provide their 12% Return in investment capital.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, BobD said:

John my understanding is they will pay you out if you cancel your account but not if you just suspend it.

I really don't think they are that bad a company that they would try to hang on to your money.

 

Thanks for the information, I read a bit more at the site. I have just requested a deletion of my (old) account (from before I entered Alamy) to be able to get the last $8-9 transferred. It seems that it should be done in steps - to be able to get the remaining amount - not very clear - perhaps on purpose.

I have deleted most when I went exclusive with both media types - and deleted the last  remaining couple of images some days ago. 

 

Edited by Niels Quist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

it's more the distance between the rate of return requirements of the shareholders for a publicly traded company

Absolutely correct, and in this case it's interesting to note that since the Chairman hold 45.5% of the issued stock they could be considered one and the same thing.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Wouldn't it be absolutely hilarious if Shutterstock was going to be merged with Alamy? (Only a joke! Only a joke!! I have no information inside or otherwise!!!)

NOT FUNNY Brian....

 

Chuck

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, BobD said:

John my understanding is they will pay you out if you cancel your account but not if you just suspend it.

I really don't think they are that bad a company that they would try to hang on to your money.

 

It looks as if you don't have to cancel. Here's what they say in the "Deactivating your account" section:

 

"We will pay any outstanding earnings above $1, but you will need to contact us in advance to process this payment."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deactivated my account as soon as this mess started, but won't delete in case things change, although I don't hold out much hope. It's too bad as I was making a reasonable amount with a small portfolio there and had intended to add to it as I was adding images here and at Adobe. May was the first month I didn't make payout there, so I guess I'll have to ask for my earnings. I assumed they would just be a loss. This really seems like a minor issue in light of what is happening in my country, a distraction, but one that has threatened the livelihood of people who have large portfolios there and were making a living at ss. All part of the same greed and income inequality that is bringing our way of life down. 

 

In stark contrast to shutterstock's underhanded move and refusal to respond to contributors, Alamy and Adobe's willingness to engage with their contributors gives me hope that stock photography will still be viable as an adjunct to photographer's income, but I worry that pricing in the stock photo industry has passed a tipping point so that it will no longer be viable as a full time profession, even for those with tens of thousands of images. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

NOT FUNNY Brian....

 

Chuck

 

Chuck, it's the best I can do given the circumstances.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Chuck, it's the best I can do given the circumstances.

 

You mean that you haven't seen the "Meanwhile, over at Alamy..." thread on the SS forum? 😁

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I tend to think that people that live in poor countries and have problems making ends meet probably have other concerns than buying computers/photography gear in order to submit photos of apples to Shutterstock. Just my opinion.

Not necessarily true. Cell phones with cameras are everywhere, and today everyone has one.  I've seen firsthand channels they use to get them into Nepal and what they cost. Ditto for Indonesia, and I won't even start about India etc.

 

Quality is naturally not good for Alamy, but is for micros. Some even have 'upload straight from mobile' and automatic keyword interface. Further Internet is everywhere and widely available.  So your cost is not more than cost of cheap cell phone.  People that live in the West in their bubbles don't generally understand what is the reality of life on this planet.   And this is why 10 cent a pop compensation works.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.